The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There was no misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendant either prepared a written consent to respective transfers under the name of Gmanman and H (hereinafter referred to as “written consent to remittance”) or presented it to I, by referring to each such written consent to remittance as of January 23, 2006. Rather, the written consent to remittance of this case is the victim limited liability company FF and hereinafter referred to as “F”).

A) On February 7, 2006, the representative member of I would be forged, and the F would not receive the price for the goods transaction between F and L and J as the price for the goods transaction between F and the L, and it does not receive the price for the share. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds of the victim’s statement made by I without credibility, etc. is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles. The sentence of imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant, who was the representative member of F, presented a written consent to remittance on January 23, 2006, which was forged to F, based on the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of the lower judgment, under the title of “determination of the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine,” and determined that it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant acquired shares in G and H by remittance from F.

Examining the judgment of the court below closely after comparison with the evidence, the judgment is just; Provided, That the "application for purchase of shares on February 20, 2006" under the name of the defendant is not adopted as evidence by the court below, and there is no ground to confirm whether the defendant's signature has been made. Thus, the "application for purchase of shares and minutes of the general meeting of shareholders of the defendant" under the 5th 13th 13th of the judgment of the court below shall be deemed to be "

Furthermore, the court below held.